Killian is the Manderin. Plain and simple. The Manderin was his mask...which is in fact a part of who he is. He couldn't operate how he wanted to without that mask.

__________________
“The line between good and evil does not lie between “us” and “them,” between the West and the rest, between Left and Right, between rich and poor. That fateful line runs down the middle of each of us, every human society, every individual.”
― N.T. Wright, Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues

^ Again, you are unequivocally mistaken/wrong. Aldrich Killian didn't fabricate The Mandarin's existence; he IS The Mandarin. All he fabricated was the persona of a public 'frontman' - Trevor Slattery - to whom he gave The Mandarin name. Killian features all of the characteristics of comics Mandarin:
1) He's a superhumanly skilled martial artist (Killian is a superhumanly skilled martial artist)
2) He's a mad scientist (Killian is a mad scientist)
3) He schemes to foment and profit from World War III (Killian schemes to foment and profit from a perpetual war on terror)

The only thing that Killian didn't have that comics Mandarin did is the alien rings.

^This x 1,000,000!

IN fact the line: "Soon I'll have the world's most powerful man in one hand, and the world's most feared terrorist in the other," should have been the clue.

Extremis was substituted for the Alien Rings.

__________________"I'm going to show you something beautiful. Everyone screaming, for mercy. You want to protect the world, but you don't want it to change. You're all puppets tangled in strings.......strings....... but now I'm free. There are no strings on me."

OK, there is a 'Mandarin character' in IM3 in the sense that, yes, there is a mastermind plotting these terrorist attacks and attempting to bring Iron Man down. But in this story The Mandarin is a fictional creation of Aldrich Killian.

Him being tiny is imo a bigger problem. Most effects these days are good enough that you can demand that the viewer immerses himself enough for it to work. I've always been an advocate for that the filmmakers and the viewer have equal responsibility for a great experience.

Him being tiny is imo a bigger problem. Most effects these days are good enough that you can demand that the viewer immerses himself enough for it to work. I've always been an advocate for that the filmmakers and the viewer have equal responsibility for a great experience.

I don't about everyone else, but if you're asking for my money, you don't demand anything from me. Especially with the price of a movie ticket today.

The Mandarin may just be the greatest comic book film villain ever. His plan was so good it broke the forth wall. People who watched the film and witnessed his treachery with they're own eyes STILL can't believe he's the guy.

I can't think of a single other comic book villain that's ever accomplished that in a film. Not one.

The Mandarin may just be the greatest comic book film villain ever. His plan was so good it broke the forth wall. People who watched the film and witnessed his treachery with their own eyes STILL can't believe he's the guy.

I can't think of a single other comic book villain that's ever accomplished that in a film. Not one.

That is not correct. The fourth wall remains untarnished. Especially by Guy Pearce's character. Aldrich Killian is not aware he is being watched by an audience in a theater. You'll have to use a different terminology to make your point.

I don't about everyone else, but if you're asking for my money, you don't demand anything from me. Especially with the price of a movie ticket today.

It's not the filmmaker that makes that demand, it's the viewer that should put it on himself since it's a significant part of having a good experience. The fact that it costs money makes it even more relevant to do so in order to get more value out of it. Not doing so just affects ourselves negatively, no one else.

That is not correct. The fourth wall remains untarnished. Especially by Guy Pearce's character. Aldrich Killian is not aware he is being watched by an audience in a theater. You'll have to use a different terminology to make your point.

The fourth wall came tumbling down the minute Trevor emerged from the bathroom.

Case in point. You can't call him the Mandarin. In spite of ALL of the evidence, you can't acknowledge the truth.

It's not the filmmaker that makes that demand, it's the viewer that should put it on himself since it's a significant part of having a good experience. The fact that it costs money makes it even more relevant to do so in order to get more value out of it. Not doing so just affects ourselves negatively, no one else.

I think there are good and bad viewers, just as good and bad movies.

If If you're saying viewers should try to keep an open mind for their own sake I agree. But for me, the onus of good storytelling remains on the party producing the entertainment.

^ Again, you are unequivocally mistaken/wrong. Aldrich Killian didn't fabricate The Mandarin's existence; he IS The Mandarin. All he fabricated was the persona of a public 'frontman' - Trevor Slattery - to whom he gave The Mandarin name. Killian features all of the characteristics of comics Mandarin:
1) He's a superhumanly skilled martial artist (Killian is a superhumanly skilled martial artist)
2) He's a mad scientist (Killian is a mad scientist)
3) He schemes to foment and profit from World War III (Killian schemes to foment and profit from a perpetual war on terror)

The only thing that Killian didn't have that comics Mandarin did is the alien rings.

The fourth wall came tumbling down the minute Trevor emerged from the bathroom.

Case in point. You can't call him the Mandarin. In spite of ALL of the evidence, you can't acknowledge the truth.

No, I'm serious. All twists, personal taste and expectations from the film aside, you're mistaken. The fourth wall in this instance is the movie theater screen. To any characters in the fictional work, that screen is a wall that doesn't allow them to see us watching.

Not Trevor, not Killian, not even Tony Stark (as we find out after the credits) speak, look at or otherwise acknowledge the existence of an audience. An example of breaking the fourth wall is Ferris Bueller speaking to the audience directly.

So you can say many have been bamboozled, many don't understand what happened in the film, many do not want to believe what happened... But it has nothing to do with the proverbial "fourth wall" of theater.

No, I'm serious. All twists, personal taste and expectations from the film aside, you're mistaken. The fourth wall in this instance is the movie theater screen. To any characters in the fictional work, that screen is a wall that doesn't allow them to see us watching.

Not Trevor, not Killian, not even Tony Stark (as we find out after the credits) speak, look at or otherwise acknowledge the existence of an audience. An example of breaking the fourth wall is Ferris Bueller speaking to the audience directly.

So you can say many have been bamboozled, many don't understand what happened in the film, many do not want to believe what happened... But it has nothing to do with the proverbial "fourth wall" of theater.

The meta rebound occurs because of the audience bringing their knowledge of Ben Kingsley with them and watching his performance: they are watching a British actor play the face of terrorism who is actually a British actor playing the face of terrorism.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Aaron

"I've known since I first took over the series that I wanted to eventually have someone else pick up the hammer," says the writer. "It's kind of a time-honored Thor tradition at this point, isn't it? Going back to the days of Beta Ray Bill."

No, I'm arguing because you are wrong. If you're point is based on a false premise wouldn't you want to correct that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathancrane

The meta rebound occurs because of the audience bringing their knowledge of Ben Kingsley with them and watching his performance: they are watching a British actor play the face of terrorism who is actually a British actor playing the face of terrorism.

Jonathan makes a far more intriguing point about cinematic parabole. Good point Jonathan! And it still has nothing to do with the fourth wall.

The fourth wall came tumbling down the minute Trevor emerged from the bathroom.

Case in point. You can't call him the Mandarin. In spite of ALL of the evidence, you can't acknowledge the truth.

....
....
....You don't know what the fourth wall is, do you?

The fourth wall is the imaginary "wall" that exists between the audience and the film, or play they are watching. When a character directly addresses the audience, and acknowledges that they are in a film or play that is breaking the fourth wall.

The fourth wall is the imaginary "wall" that exists between the audience and the film, or play they are watching. When a character directly addresses the audience, and acknowledges that they are in a film or play that is breaking the fourth wall.

Dude. You still aren't getting it. Google fourth wall if you have to. I'm sure the filmmakers understand the fourth wall just fine. As the closest they've come to breaking it is Tony narrating IM3. Which (after the credits) we find out isn't the case, because he isn't talking to us, he's talking to Bruce Banner.

Neither of those examples have anything to do with the fourth wall because (as you said) they are both talking "to Tony." As opposed to addressing the audience.